Grave vs Serious

[alphonsus1]

Yes, I do realize that these were composed in Latin. However, given I am not a Latin scholar, I have to rely on my English translation of Denzinger and the Official English translations of these encyclicals on the Vatican website. But the point remains, the minute nuances of these translations is vitally important!

 

[Canvas]

Except that there have been posters here who, when it comes to mortal sin, persist in claiming that there is a category of ‘grave sin’ which is not so serious as mortal sin. So it’s no wonder people get confused.

I think those posters might be speaking of a sin that includes grave matter, but lacks the knowledge and/or consent to make it a true mortal sin

 

[BartholomewB]

But the point remains, the minute nuances of these translations is vitally important!

They are vitally important to you, but the question is whether they were equally vitally important to the constantly changing teams of translators who were turning the Latin or Italian into English.

 

[Canvas]

I think part of the problem is that most of these earlier Popes spoke Italian as their first language, and grave and serious are closer in meaning, while in English, grave means “deadly serious”.

In Italian the word “grave” has a much greater semantic range. Consulting an Italian dictionary is helpful when translating a word like this. The first four pertinent definitions are:

1. something that has significant weight
2. weighed down, as if by fatigue, exhaustion; heavy, oppressive;
3. difficult to sustain insofar as it creates pain and suffering; and
4. implying an onerous or notable responsibility.

When interpreting the use of “ serio ” one should be aware that in Italian it strongly suggests acting with responsibility and should also observe that the third definition regards weight and importance:

1. demonstrating effort, prudence (‘ ponderatezza ’) and a sense of responsibility in one’s attitude, behavior or in a particular situation or circumstance; one who faces life and its problems conscientiously and aware of his duties and abilities;
2. having a preoccupied expression or attitude, pensive or even sad;
3. regarding a situation or circumstance, weighty or important;
4. regarding a sickness, worrisome because of its gravity or eventual outcome;
5. something that is not a joke.

This comes from a linguistic look at translations of HV.

Humanae Vitae: Grave Motives to Use a Good Translation - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

 

[Canvas]

Basically, to sum it up, in Italian, grave and serious are closer than in English. So much care has to be used translating a document into English in order to capture the proper intent of a person who speaks Italian as their first language, because in English “grave” would mean “deadly serious”, the very highest level of severity.

 

[alphonsus1]

Yes I can address this. I was intending to talk about grave and serious “circumstances,” not the off topic debate going on right now about “grave matter.”

Denzinger, repeatedly talks about “grave” circumstances, being life threatening circumstances. (Examples: Denzinger 2715, 2795, 3634, 3638).

Here are examples where Denzinger uses the word serious:

Denzinger 1175: With cause it is licit to swear without the intention of swearing, whether the matter be light or serious.
-CONDEMNED

Whoever moves or induces another to bring a serious loss upon a third party is not bound to a restitution of that loss incurred.
-CONDEMNED

Denginger 1547:
“…sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect,–false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.”

However, serious is used in many contexts, so I would really need to study all the usages, and decrees in Ph.D. level depth to really know the answer.

However, what is clear, is that Church documents that use “serious” today, use it more synonymous with “just.”

Examples: Humanae Vitae referenced above.

Also, on skipping mass, serious is used, but is not just life threatening.

Catechism 2181. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) …

Preliminary conclusion: grave means life threatening, but more recent documents use “serious” to refer to things that are not life threatening. But like I said, I will study this more before forming a strong opinion.

 

[stpurl]

I think so too, but the problem is that they are calling it ‘grave sin but not mortal sin’, and that is just plain wrong. Sin is either mortal or venial, not ‘mortal, grave, or venial’.

A venial sin which is venial because it is grave matter but not full knowledge or full consent is still venial; it isn’t ‘grave sin’.

It’s a venial sin because even though it was grave matter, it lacked one or both of the other necessary components.

 

[Canvas]

I think so too, but the problem is that they are calling it ‘grave sin but not mortal sin’, and that is just plain wrong. Sin is either mortal or venial, not ‘mortal, grave, or venial’.

A venial sin which is venial because it is grave matter but not full knowledge or full consent is still venial; it isn’t ‘grave sin’.

It’s a venial sin because even though it was grave matter, it lacked one or both of the other necessary components.

Oh, I agree fully. There is no “middle” category of sin, ( although different mortal sins and venial sins do have different levels of severity and carry different moral weight, depending on the kind of sin, circumstances, intent and degree of malice. )

 

[alphonsus1]

Yes, to be objectively a mortal sin, an act must meet three conditions (Catechism 1857): “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

But insufficient knowledge and consent to perform an act in the first place, or mitigating factors listed in the Catechism 1735, may reduce culpability, so that the act is not an “actual mortal sin.”

Your answer is spot on: sins are either mortal or venial. And for a sin to be objectively a mortal sin, the object must be “grave matter” deduced from the 10 commandments. Some sins can have grave matter in the object, but imputibility may be reduced, so that the Catechism 1862 says: “One commits venial sin… when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

 

[alphonsus1]

I never said I didn’t care about what others had to say.

I was intending to say: I originally thought this discussion board was about answering questions of the Original Poster.

Now I realize it is about: answering a question of the OP, but also having a discussion with others who do not know the answer, but may have insites nonetheless that are very insiteful

Also, I agree, if the translators do not take great care, educated theologians who do not know the nuances of Latin and Italian could be misled.

 

[alphonsus1]

I really like this analysis. To tell you the Truth, I am a math person who uses logic and reason between premises.

But if I am not understanding what is said, then I am using logic and reason between faulty premises, and I will likely come to faulty conclusions. That is why translation and linguistics is vitally important!

And I will read that article on Humanae Vitae. Thankfully, I was using the translation with “serious”, not the translation with “grave” (so I was not misled).

But I appreciate your insites It is very informative, and brings a perspective I need to consider more: linguistics! I typically trust that the translation is not misleading. But I will consider these insites in the future. Thanks again

 

[OSN]

My question to this would be , is this something that is taught to seminarians at some point in their training when learning about Reconciliation ?

This seems like something more for clerics than for a layperson to dwell over, while there is nothing wrong with the lay people to be involved with the reading and information. Just seems like when it comes down to it, are the Priests and Bishops all the way up to the Pope all in the same boat, in this regard ? If anyone shouldn’t have a major difference of opinion on the matter of grave and serious sins, I would hope it would be clergy who are in agreement.

 

[Elf01]

I think so too, but the problem is that they are calling it ‘grave sin but not mortal sin’, and that is just plain wrong. Sin is either mortal or venial, not ‘mortal, grave, or venial’.

A venial sin which is venial because it is grave matter but not full knowledge or full consent is still venial; it isn’t ‘grave sin’.

It’s a venial sin because even though it was grave matter, it lacked one or both of the other necessary components

I do see value in pointing out that an act is grave matter though.

 

[stpurl]

I do as well, but NOT by calling it ‘grave sin’. A simple, “this is objectively grave matter but the person did not have full knowledge or consent, so it is a venial sin in this case”. . .might be more words but that never stopped me (LOL) and since people who call things ‘grave sin’ usually use a lot more words to explain why they are ‘right’ to do so, it’s not like it makes more work for them. Usually it makes less work if they say what I offer.